Can Voting Secure Godly Government?
Over in the Reformed Steakhouse, conservative pundit John Loftus wrote (in gratuitous capitals, no less),
WE WILL NEVER GET GODLY GOVERNMENT BY VOTING FOR MEN WHO HAVE NO BIBLICAL VIEW OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT….
I responded that we will never get godly government by voting, either. Voting—even for the most ideal candidate—can never insure elected officials will honor their duty to walk according to the moral law, regardless of platforms and promises. We can vote in David and watch him become Saul over night.
Rest assured, we will get godly civil government the moment God chooses to give it to us. That moment just happens to come, I believe, no sooner than Christ’s return. Until then, governments will fall terribly short of the standards expected of the church. We therefore await the time when they shall be made a footstool unto the Lord Jesus, praying God inclines them to rule wisely for the benefit of the Church. Kings’ hearts are in the hand of the Lord. If we spend more time arguing about politics than praying God’s “will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” we have ourselves to blame.
Does Voting Insure Representation?
Facts about voting: Election by vote does not guarantee candidates reflect the interest of “the people”. Case in point: in 1996, only 54% of Americans voted. Of those, 49.2% voted for Clinton. This means we can only be sure Clinton represented the choice of 26% of Americans. It also means we know at least 27% did not favor him, and the desires of 46% remain unknown.
In order for voting to reflect the majority-interest of the people, a minimum of 50.0001% of Americans must vote, in which case a candidate must win more than 99.9999% of those votes. In another version, 75% must vote, of which 67% must choose the same candidate. A vast turnout of this scale combined with such a sweeping win has, to my knowledge, never occurred in our Country. So we may only be sure that elected persons represent the majority interest of a vocal minority.
Some might jump to say that, well, if 46% don’t vote, they are either lazy, indifferent, or stupid. In any case, they deserve to be subjected to the policies of whatever leader comes into power. But it should be remembered many people choose not to vote out of conscientious objection. To them, voting represents compliance in a system that is engineered to misrepresent their interests. For instance, I cared deeply about the outcome of the elections in ‘08, but thought both major candidates so terribly represented my interests that choosing either would have been like trying to decide on which pimp to whore my dollars out to foreign interests and domestic tax sponges.
At that time I was not aware of Ron Paul. Though he doesn’t reflect all of my desires, he at least seems to have a stance that makes me feel like I’m in a poor, albeit consensual relationship with government, rather than one of unilateral force.
This is not to say that I discourage voting, but that we should be aware of the facts about it.
Voting According to Principle: GOP pick or Pen-in?
With elections looming, people have asked what exactly is my political platform? According to an indisputable five-question FaceBook poll, I am a “Left Leaning Centrist”, whatever that is. (And here I thought I was as Left as my right hand?) More specifically, I was questioned whether I will support whichever candidate wins the GOP primaries, or split the “conservative” vote by penning in someone else? For instance, if Gov. Rick Perry wins the bid, will I back him?
One recognizable symptom of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results. If Americans want significant change in their country, and a break from the madness of the past twelve years, candidates are needed who can deliver something besides the usual big government fear-mongering and willingness to ride the debt pony to death.
I’m willing to try something different than the typical vain-glorious Neocons and ineffectual corporate liberals. To my judgment, only Ron Paul seems able. The thing I like about Paul, is that he speaks his mind with few cliches and is uncommonly blunt about the situation; the opposing party is not the problem, the whole system is. The Federal Government spends too much, oversteps too much, and needs to be downsized dramatically. And boy do I love that Ron Paul, whose voting record is virtually unparalleled for conservative judgment on issues of life and property, does not pander to the so-called “moral majority” or do, as Vladimir Putin says, “a religious strip-tease” for voters. Paul has not taken every opportunity to “bare all” of his spiritual views, unlike most of the GOP front-runners, yet his stance on personal freedoms, hard work, and small government reveals true nobility and consistency with what I regard to be real character.
